You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparing apples and pears in studies on magnitude estimations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00332 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mirjam Ebersbach, Koen Luwel, Lieven Verschaffel |
| Abstract |
The present article is concerned with studies on magnitude estimations that strived to uncover the underlying mental representation(s) of magnitudes. We point out a number of methodological differences and shortcomings that make it difficult drawing general conclusions. To solve this problem, we propose a taxonomy by which those studies could be classified, taking into account central methodological aspects of magnitude estimation tasks. Finally, we suggest perspectives for future research on magnitude estimations, which might abandon the hunt for the mathematical model that explains estimations best and turn, instead, to investigate the underlying principles of estimations (e.g., strategies) and ways of their improvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2013.
All research outputs
#13,891,295
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,072
of 29,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,384
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#580
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.